Burning Man and environmental impact of travelling there

[BBadger]

Shit, why stop there??? Wouldn't it be more effective to just ban international burners instead of the people flying in from oh-so-far locations as San Francisco or Reno? There's literally a whole world worth of airline traffic we could ban from Burning Man to save the planet!

Let's do the math:

• San Francisco to Black Rock Desert: 350 mi @ ~130kg CO2
• London to San Francisco: 5,351 mi @ 1,223kg CO2

(calculator)

Just to attend Burning Man!?

For every person flying in from the UK it's TEN flying in from San Francisco! Maybe even more [1]! Can't they take a fucking train?! Isn't there some sort of local Glaston-buried-in-garbage festival or something one can attend instead?



Save the fucking planet man!

Or does only the last leg of the trip count? Not Australia to San Francisco, not Florida to Reno, not London to LAX. Not even all those miles people drive their RV that gets 8mpg 7mpg from Salt Lake City to this nowhereland in the desert -- and hauling in 40 gallons of fuel for the camp generator. It's those damn turboprops flying from San Francisco to BRC that are really making that difference.



That last straw that broke the planet's back.




[1] Not including the "radiative forcing" multiplier caused by the high-altitude emissions caused by the jet liners. Oh the humanity!

[some seeing eye]

This chart http://timeforchange.org/co2-emissions-shipping-goods shows that we should send all international burners by cargo ship rather than jet aircraft. Thereafter the answer is zeppelins.

[media]

[Simon of the Playa]

the answer is ALWAYS zeppelin.

[Captain Goddammit]

The hypocrisy of this whole thread coming from someone who left one of the largest carbon footprints of any burner by flying so far just to go to a party is remarkable

[apprehensive]

In point of fact, it's what motivated me to pose the question.

Also, were the organisers to ban attendees from outside North America, then fine. But even if they did choose to implement such a ban, it's not something they could realistically control. Probably better to add an international supplement to the ticket price in order to cover additional carbon offsetting if they were to do anything. And please bear in mind that whilst Zeppelin would be a cool way to get to Nevada, airplane is the only means open to international attendees. Local attendees could drive in lieu of flying.

Also, in terms of my ethics, my carbon footprint is pretty small, and I rarely fly long haul. But this is opening the floodgates to ad hominem and this is typically where previous threads on this topic have veered wildly off the rails.

[Captain Goddammit]

(Free clue)

International burner ban and Zeppelin travel were sarcasm, not literal suggestions.
That was intended to echo the ridiculousness of the whole topic.

[apprehensive]

Yuh, I got the sarcasm.

I suppose I'm curious though as to why there's such resistance to proposals to make the event more green. Even from a self interest perspective, the more environmentally friendly Burning Man is the better as it does seem to be coming under increasing fire and plenty of people would like to see it end.

[some seeing eye]

Apprehensive, it is very difficult for someone who has never been to BM to save the event from itself. Some of us long time participants are very strategic in any effort we put into changing the large direction of the event.

Suggest you do a detailed study of your personal life and carbon, then act on that. Then connect up with your UK regional http://regionals.burningman.org/regionals/ and see where you can volunteer. They are not going to make you vice president in charge of carbon reduction right away. Working on trash reduction at Glastonbury would be a useful project.

I think it is great you found ePlaya and are participating. But you are going to understand better after a week at the event what the event is. Oh and book your travel next year on an ocean-going vessel.

[apprehensive]

In terms of strategic direction, what are you suggestions? I do understand that this is a juggernaut of an event now and change must be carefully implemented and gradual, but I'd like to hear what you'd do, be it concrete suggestions or more broad aims.

[misfit]

>>>>who left one of the largest carbon footprints of any burner by flying <<<<

this would be true if he was the only passenger on the plane. what is the average capacity of an international flight.?.
apprehensive, as been stated many times before, burning man is not and has never been billed as a green event, (we are LNT). best to not worry about the total carbon foot print, but at the same time do what you can do to limit your own. you have great ideas, just don't forget to have a good time.

[maladroit]

>>>>who left one of the largest carbon footprints of any burner by flying <<<<

this would be true if he was the only passenger on the plane. what is the average capacity of an international flight.?.

The carbon calculations are per passenger.

Keep in mind that they missed at least one flight...thereby very likely causing an empty seat to travel across the Atlantic and DOUBLING the carbon footprint per passenger in their case.

[apprehensive]

misfit, my carbon footprint for attending this event would have been substantial unfortunately and I did wrestle with that aspect of it.

As I said previously, I'm happy to admit my own pollution footprint, but it's probably more productive to focus on possible areas where the event could improve, or not.

[Captain Goddammit]

People are resistant to "greening" Burning Man because it fucks it up, plain and simple. What are you gonna do to green it? Ban burning stuff? That fucks it up.
Ban generators? That fucks it up.
Ban the big vehicles we drive? That fucks it up, can't bring all the awesome stuff.
Really, whatever you do to put even more rules and restrictions on it just fucks it up.

This is not, and never was, a hippy dippy peace and love tree hugging utopia. It's a party way out in the desert. It's not here to conserve anything.

[Jackass]

Is there any other place on Earth displaying this level of opulence in the middle of the desert besides maybe Vegas or Dubai?

Certainly no other temporary cities...

[some seeing eye]

it's probably more productive to focus on possible areas where the event could improve

What everyone is saying over and over is NO! Even me who works in carbon stuff.

It is more productive to focus on yourself 24x365 and learn about the field technically and policy-wise. For transport http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/ is good. Focus on getting to your virgin event in 2016 and surviving.

Then we can discuss greening BM after September 2016 with you. In the meantime ask questions about preparation on ePlaya or participate in our meandering snark and humor! There is no need for you to make yourself the target of it by persisting.

Good questions to discuss for virgins after searching are costumes, food, shade for fly-in burners. And again get with your regional.

You can start your tech journey by understanding

and then researching or building your own Sankey diagram including CO2 for say the UK. Extra credit: do one for Glastonbury.

[tamarakay]

It is funny how we keep getting dragged into the green thing. I'm sure it's due to the leave no trace element of our little event, but really it's just leave no trace on the black rock desert so we can get our permit, more than it is leave no trace that we exist in the world. We do love our carbon releasing at the burn and we will continue to love our carbon releasing. Sorry. The rest of the year I'm more careful and try and reduce, reuse, recycle, all that stuff. but for this event Let me hit the button for the poofer PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE and set off that methane explosion. I'll be the one screaming the loudest.

[ygmir]

good points TK! yeah, it's certainly not "leave no trace" from the pavement to Sacramento...

[apprehensive]

Again, thank you for the responses and in particular the posts offering some clarification of where you're all at, as that was what I was really after.

Okay, so banning burning stuff and generators is a no? Cool. Makes sense, and they contribute very little to the event anyway in terms of their carbon footprint. I wasn't ever really proposing that and it's a separate issue to transport anyway. I suppose we're in slight disagreement regarding the transport element though. Personally, I'd be trying, hammer and nail, to whittle that down. That is, encouraging people to carpool more, greater use of the Burner Express, reducing the number of jets, yadda yadda. And once again, I do GET, 100%, that this is an opulent, carbon intensive event, pretty much by definition. But I think you're all underestimating the level of animosity, both present and potential, that is out there, and the detractors' argument for getting rid of Burning Man is getting stronger by the day given the direction that the planet is heading in. So, all I am saying, is that it may be at least worth entertaining the notion that it is by no means a given that the event is going to continue to be allowed, at least in its present form. Even if the measures implemented to make it look more green are but window dressing, it is all the same important to consider implementing them, but they need to be implemented now rather than in several years down the line when people start throwing large handfuls of mud. This is may be me being unduly cynical and perhaps the critics in the default world aren't as hostile as I'm suggesting they are.

I appreciate the above posts explaining your position though and that was really all I was after with my initial question. I wasn't attacking the event as such, merely trying to open up some constructive debate. Thank you.

[ygmir]

...................................... That is, encouraging people to carpool more, greater use of the Burner Express, reducing the number of jets, yadda yadda. ................

Maybe like some sort of vehicle fee, or pass? limiting numbers of vehicles, charging for them per vehicle,to encourage full vehicles?

[apprehensive]

Again with the sarcasm. Maybe instead of that you could offer up a suggestion as to how the present system could be improved, unless you think it's perfect as it is.

[Elderberry]

Again with the sarcasm. Maybe instead of that you could offer up a suggestion as to how the present system could be improved, unless you think it's perfect as it is.

Are you not listening or are you just thick? Why do you think they implemented the VP to begin with. Had you had a little more experience with the event, you might have known that.

[The Rod]

Again with the sarcasm. Maybe instead of that you could offer up a suggestion as to how the present system could be improved, unless you think it's perfect as it is.

I have a suggestion on how we can improve the present system:


Burn MORE Shit and Blow MORE Shit Up.



And I'm not being sarcastic.


...


At all.

[Meat Hunter]

Does anyone by chance have a dead horse handy. I have a club.....

[apprehensive]

Elderberry, I'm aware of the VP system and I'm aware of the rationale behind it. Instead of having the blindingly obvious pointed out to me in a sarcastic fashion, it would be have more constructive for ygmir to have tried to make a suggestion as to how the present system could be improved.

Can I make a suggestion of my own? Should you feel this thread is redundant, then don't respond to it. Again, thank you for those of you have contributed constructively so far and I welcome more responses even should they be further reasons why I'm all kinds of wrong.

I think part of the problem is that I may not have made my position clear. Burning more on playa and having larger explosions can still happen whilst reducing the event's overall pollution footprint, I think.

[BBadger]

apprehensive,

If you were serious at all about greening up anything you'd protest the very existence of Burning Man at all. Everything is resource intensive, wasteful, and polluting at the burn. Concentrating on this or that token gesture to reduce pollution is just ignoring the elephant in the room.

Moreover, why the concentration on flying to Burning Man?

• Why ban flying when there is some guy with a propane torch "wasting" tanks of fuel just to make a steel heart glow red?
• Why ban flying when there's someone pointlessly driving around a ship-shaped bus at 5mph around an open desert?
• Why ban flying when people are driving 650 miles from Los Angeles to BRC just to attend some party in the desert?
• Why ban flying when people are already flying far greater distances for the majority of their trips?
• Why ban flying when we're building and then burning a tower of lumber in the shape of a stick-man, and then a temple structure? Who the fuck does that kind of thing?!

We could ask this about any other resource-intensive event or activity at the burn. Really though, why the hell even have Burning Man at all if we're so damned worried about the resources we're consuming?


Why shouldn't we ban aircraft at the burn? Because people enjoy flying to the burn instead of driving. It's a great view. It's faster. It's flying! It's fucking Burning Man.


Yeah, Burning Man. Even its name implies resource consumption and pollution. How much crap do people buy and waste for this event already? How much stuff gets irreparably ruined by the environment? This is the nature of this event, and if we're polluting, that is simply another cost we pay to attend. Go charge some carbon credits or something, but people who want to fly will fly. It's just another great thing we can choose to do when attending.

As I've said before, spend your efforts on something that matters, like gasoline-powered leaf blowers. Save the world that way.

[Simon of the Playa]

eco trolls gonna eco troll.

next up he's gonna put up a website up for compost porta potties...

[Captain Goddammit]

As long as it passes its post event BLM inspection and has an adequate porta-potty vendor and tickets are selling out and most importantly, the Org continues to pay several million each year for a permit, it WILL continue to happen.

The more rules about riding the fucking bus you create the more you ruin it.
People have to carry everything they need for a week in a harsh desert. And it wouldn't be Burning Man if they didn't also carry tons of crazy random artistic shit. SOME people can ride the bus, but most need to drive.
If it's worth it to you to travel that far just to attend, you should be thanking those of us who drive there in our own trucks and trailers carrying heavy stuff over mountains for you to fly in and look at like a spectator.
You're welcome, Eco-crybaby-hypocrite.

No one is going to offer you ideas how we can green this up because we have zero intention of doing that.
This is your idea - fixing an event you've never seen - and the ideas you've put up have major shortcomings.

I mean, have you ever tried fat-free mayonnaise? It's horrible. I'd rather just not put on any mayo than eat that stuff.

[apprehensive]

No one is going to offer you ideas how we can green this up because we have zero intention of doing that.

Interesting. You're part of BMORG, are you?

[Bless]

No one is going to offer you ideas how we can green this up because we have zero intention of doing that.

Interesting. You're part of BMORG, are you?

He's definitely a narc.

[ygmir]

No one is going to offer you ideas how we can green this up because we have zero intention of doing that.

Interesting. You're part of BMORG, are you?

He's definitely a narc.

Psy-narc, at that